linux-kernel - Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:50:16 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com, suparna@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:56:19 +0530 Amit K. Arora wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 02:14:17AM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Wouldn't
> > int fallocate(loff_t offset, loff_t len, int fd, int mode)
> > work on both s390 and ppc/arm?  glibc will certainly wrap it and
> > reorder the arguments as needed, so there is no need to keep fd first.
>  
> This should work on all the platforms. The only concern I can think of
> here is the convention being followed till now, where all the entities on
> which the action has to be performed by the kernel (say fd, file/device
> name, pid etc.) is the first argument of the system call. If we can live
> with the small exception here, fine.
> 
> Or else, we may have to implement the 
> 
>   int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len
> 
> as the layout of arguments here. I think only s390 will have a problem
> with this, and we can think of a workaround for it (may be similar to
> what ARM did to implement sync_file_range() system call)   :
> 
> asmlinkage long sys_s390_fallocate(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int mode)
> {
>         return sys_fallocate(fd, offset, len, mode);
> }
> 
> 
> To me both the approaches look slightly unconventional. But, we need to
> compromise somewhere to make things work on all the platforms.
> 
> Any thoughts on which one of the above should we finalize on ?
> 
> Thanks!

If s390 can work around the calling order that easily, I certainly
prefer the more conventional ordering of:

>   int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/